Obama Transition on The Huffington Post

Ed Gurowitz, Ph.D.: The Hate That Dare Not Speak Its Name

2009-12-03T15:11:09Z

Well, it appears that getting into a White House State Dinner where the President and a visiting head of state are present is considerably easier than getting on a Southwest flight from Reno to Oakland.

For that half-hour trip, flyers need to show a picture ID, be checked against the reservation list and the no-fly list, put limited supplies of liquids into a see-through bag which is then X-rayed, and go through a metal detector.

To get into the aforementioned White House function it appears you need to be (a) well-dressed, (b) good-looking, and (c) (maybe) Caucasian.

It's estimated that this President has received about four times as many death threats as his predecessors, yet admission to his house is apparently based on having one's name checked against a list, and even that isn't all that tight.

The Secret Service has, appropriately, fallen on its sword over the security lapse, but there appears to be more to the story than that. According to Michael Isikoff in Newsweek, a White House staffer who was accountable for checking these guest lists resigned earlier this year when she was told her being at the door with the Secret Service was not necessary.

I was starting to think that this whole incident might be being blown out of proportion until my wife forwarded to me an email she received from a friend of the right-wing persuasion. The email is below:

THIS IS YOUR PRESIDENT

FORWARD TO ALL YOU CAN

Everyone of voting age should read these two books. Don't buy them, get them from the library before they are removed from the shelves.

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe and white.

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

And FINALLY, and most scary!

From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

If you have never forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to do so!!!

We CANNOT have someone with this mentality running our GREAT nation!!

I don't care whether you are a Democrat , a Republican, a Conservative

or a liberal, We CANNOT turn ourselves over to this type of character in a President.

PLEASE help spread the word.

We have really put ourselves in harm's way with this monster in disguise.

I haven't checked on whether these quotes are accurate; let's assume for the moment that they are - it really doesn't matter They are context-free, and, as I read them, they have a clear and singular intent - to portray the President as anti-white. As much as they tried to leave the reader to draw their own conclusions, their real agenda is clear – to foment racial hatred against the duly-elected President of the United States.

Earlier this year when I and others suggested that the Birthers, the Tea Baggers, the Limbaughs and Becks (and now Palins) of the world were motivated at least in part by racism, the President himself said that he did not believe that to be the case. I wonder if the above email would change his mind.

I’ve never been attracted to conspiracy theories – it’s too easy to find a boogie man (boogie person?) behind every door. When Hilary invoked a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her, I wondered. Now I’m getting a bit frightened. Is it possible that the lapse in security at the White House is part of something larger? I pray not.

But I also pray for this country – to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we must hang together, or we will be hung out to dry separately.

Dr. Judith Rich: The Nobel Prize: A Tool For Shifting Consciousness?

2009-10-14T14:32:54Z

Now that just about the entire world has weighed in on whether or not President Obama deserves to win the Nobel Peace Prize, the fact remains: he was awarded the prize.

What's with all the petty chipping and harping about his worthiness? Even those on the left are taking shots. Are we sore winners or what? "Oh this old prize? Heh, it's nothing! Who cares what five Norwegian men think?"

Can we please just accept this honor in a way befitting a nation that elected to the highest office in the land, a man whose vision struck joy in the hearts of the rest of the world?

Instead of celebrating this honor, we're diminishing it. Any club that would have Obama as a member can't be worth belonging to, right? Wait! He's OUR president! WE elected him, remember? I think we need a massive dose of "shift" about now.

We've become a bunch of curmudgeons. We're like the woman who receives a compliment on the new dress she's wearing and responds with "What, this old rag? I just pulled this out of my closet and haven't worn it in years." We no longer know how it feels to feel good or proud of ourselves. And for good reason. After all the havoc we created in the last eight years, maybe the Norwegians are trying to get a message to us that we finally did a good thing by electing Obama.

OK, maybe SNL was right. Maybe he did get it for not being Bush. But if that's his ONLY accomplishment thus far, his not being Bush is cause enough for the world to celebrate and bestow its highest honor on him.

As Americans, we cannot fully appreciate how the rest of the world must have felt during the past eight years of the Bush administration with a questionably-recovered alcoholic, ex-drug addict cowboy at the helm of the most powerful military on the face of the earth. Recall Bush landing on the aircraft carrier and strutting across the flight deck wearing that tight-fitting flight suit, proudly displaying his manhood for all the world to see. No wonder the world breathed a sigh of relief when Obama was declared the winner of our presidential election!

Huff Post blogger, Joseph Palermo, nailed it when he said:

What Bush did was shift the posture of American foreign policy toward militarism and unilateralism, and he did so with a jingoistic right-wing Christian fundamentalist flair. President Obama, in less than ten months, has reset American foreign policy more toward multilateralism and a mature engagement with the world.

So yes, Obama is not George Bush, and the world thought that was a good thing. His election demonstrated to the people of the world that the American people, who had kept Bush in office for 8 years, though even that's controversial. But then Democrats never had the cajones to actually mount a challenge to Bush's legitimacy as president even though he lost the popular vote and was selected, not elected, by the Supreme Court in 2000. They've redeemed themselves by re-engaging as a member of the world community, and resigned its role as the world's bully.

What if Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for articulating and extending a vision to the world that was one of inclusivity, not the "you're either with us or against us" kind of rhetoric heard from George W.

Here's what Obama said in his inaugural address, Jan. 20, 2009:

And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.
They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

I know these are just words and Obama gives a good speech, but maybe that's where it all begins - articulating a vision that captures the imagination. The work is yet to be done.

Palermo suggests Obama's winning the prize is another one of his "teaching moments." I agree, but for a slightly different reason.

I think there's a larger intelligence at work here, a new level of consciousness waiting to come forth. There's an awareness in giving of this prize to Obama that transcends the prize itself. It establishes new meaning. If this is a "think outside the box" collective moment, what can we learn from this event to forward the human condition?

From his inauguration speech again:

And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

Obama has taken a stand for America's return to leadership as a peacemaker. Those words were uttered ten months ago. Rome wasn't built in a day. Clearly, there is work to be done to achieve this lofty goal. We gave Bush eight years to destroy America's standing in the world. Can we allow Obama at least four to repair it?

Rather than viewing this prize as an albatross, why not hold it as a symbol we've been awarded to carry humanity's highest aspirations, like the Olympic torch? What if this award is a vote of confidence from the world community that America is once again viewed as a worthy steward of that flame? As our president said in his response to this award, " I view this less as a recognition of my own accomplishments and more as a call to action".

I can buy this. So what's the call to action? Let me take a leap here and suggest a larger context than the one Obama probably meant. I see this as a "call to action" for an evolution of the collective consciousness of mankind. That is, to have our collective consciousness aligned with its true nature, which is wholeness.

The true state of the universe is one of wholeness. There is no separation. Only in our human egotistic state do we experience separation. This is not the truth of how it is, it is an illusion.

I see the call to action as one for humanity to restore its consciousness to its natural and authentic state of oneness. I see the human race being invited to take a collective leap of consciousness so as to enter a new paradigm, one in which war is obsolete and has no relevance for how the world works. We either make this leap or we're bound for extinction, either through war or through cataclysmic environmental changes.

Let's consider that President Obama is just the torch bearer, but we're the ones who will do the heavy lifting of waging peace in the new paradigm. We're being asked to learn how to actively wage peace, not just end wars. As Obama said, "Starting wars is easier than ending them". And end them we must. But that's not enough.

We must to learn how to create peace in the aftermath. And not just the kind of stand-off peace of former enemies who've called a truce. We're being asked to stand for peace, to become peacemakers.

To be a stand for peace, not like in a Hallmark card, but in real ways in our lives everyday. Let's put aside the argument of whether or not Obama deserves the prize and get on with the business of waging peace. Here, you and me. Now.

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.

These are lovely words, but it is we who must have give them meaning by getting into action and manifesting this vision. Can we unclench our fists right here in this country and begin waging peace with our neighbors, no matter who we vote for?

This is what Pesident Obama is calling us to do. He's talking not only to Americans. He's speaking to the world. This is one reason why I think the world wanted to acknowledge him. It was their way of saying, "we hear you and we're on board".

In truth, the prize belongs to each of us. Or in the words of someone who commented on another post :

"I am not an American, but have great faith in the majority of your people. Some nations take a lot longer than 8 years to fix what has gone wrong. You, on the other hand, managed to reverse the tide, and elected a great man to be your leader. In many ways, this prize is for those who have elected him. He just happened to be the one to pick it up on behalf of you."

Now let's get to work and live into the honor we've just received. Imagine you've just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. (And you have!) What is your acceptance message? What does this honor mean for you and how will you use the $1.4 million to further the cause of peace?

Please drop by the comment section below or visit my personal blog and website at Rx For The Soul. Blessings on the path.

John L. Esposito: Obama-Mania: An Opportunity but Also a Bottom Line

2009-07-14T10:25:27Z

"How long will this excitement last?" Recent visits and meetings in the Gulf and Egypt reinforce the excitement, hopes, concerns and some cynicism engendered by President Obama's messages to the Muslim world, in particular his Cairo speech. The effects of Obama-mania can be seen at the Sultan Hassan Mosque where Obama's visit to the mosque transformed it into an Egyptian tourist site, often disrupting the quiet of Friday congregational (juma) prayers.

But the question raised is, "Even if he has knowledge and vision, can the new President deliver, given the power of Congress, increasing Republican opposition, the Israel Lobby and realities of Muslim world?" Will he have the political will, if required, to do what's right, whatever the political cost, or like most presidents and politicians, will he yield to the political realities and need to safeguard his career?

After only five months in office, Obama has been highly active in engaging leaders and groups around the world. However, while this raised expectations, much of our foreign policy, like our economic situation, remains in the shadow of the Bush administration's failed policies. A month after his Cairo speech, many in the Middle East and Muslim world are attempting to map out the composition, character and spirit of Obama's administration. A common question and concern is, "If Obama, personally, represents a very new and fresh chapter in American politics, why, then, do so many aspects of his administration smack of the Bush era?"

While Obama's vision and words are different from those of George W. Bush, it is still not clear to what extent, on the hot button issues, his policies will be all that different. An appointment like that of George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East was a welcomed surprise, but thus far seems to be the exception. The absence of prominent Middle East and human rights experts and Muslim professionals and, at the same time, the number of former Clinton and Bush officials like Dennis Ross, Richard Holbrook, Christopher R. Hill and Farah Pandit raise disturbing questions about how "new" Obama's "New Way Forward" is really going to be. The high profile role of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who from the moment she ran for Senator from New York reversed many of her earlier positions... on Palestine and Israel... and whose political godfather in New York is Sen. Charles Schumer, a fine legislator on many matters but uncritical supporter of Israel, is also a matter of concern."

Many were prepared to understand and accept why, given domestic political realities, candidate Obama distanced himself from Muslims, seeing it as a pragmatic political necessity. However, five months into his presidency, Barack Obama has yet to make many significant appointments of Muslim professionals. Soon, Muslims and others will reasonably be asking: "If there are seven million Muslims in America, where are they represented in the government bureaucracy, in appointments as ambassadors, and advisory roles? Obama is challenged by the absence from the new administration of Muslim experts with a fresh perspective, especially since Muslims are among the best educated groups in America. Among the very few Muslims thus far appointed is Farah Pandit, the new U.S. Representative to Muslim Communities, who has been closely associated with the Bush administration as a member of the NSC and State Department, This raises the question "Aren't there other Muslim Americans who could provide fresh ideas?"

When have we seen Arabs and Palestinians in senior government positions? During Bill Clinton's second term, a preponderance of Jewish Americans occupied key Middle East positions, from Asst. Secretary of State and head of the NSC to many appointments in the State Department. However different, they were perceived, at the end of the day, as partial to Israel. Who are the experts in the National Security Council in positions of significance and in the State Department who represent not only new faces, but clearly new and alternative views?

Obama is especially challenged to pursue new avenues in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Aaron Miller, a prominent Middle East expert and member of the Clinton and Bush administrations, believes that the only way forward for Palestine and Israel is for the U.S., Israelis and the Palestinians to recognize that the old paradigm(s) failed and to realize that "a new paradigm" is needed.

Double standards? Part of the debate triggered by the Iran crisis, in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world, remains: if Obama was acting out of genuine concern for the killing of Iranians in Tehran why was he so silent during Israel's war on Gaza in which more than 1,400 Palestinians were killed?

President-elect Obama's argument that there's "only one president" does not resonate well in the Middle East among those who point out that he did not hesitate to condemn the November Mumbai bombings, which many see as a classic case of America's double standards. "Realists" in the U.S. and also in the Middle East argue that Obama cannot, in light of American domestic political realities, be evenhanded on Palestine and Israel because it's political suicide. At the end of the day, will Obama do what few presidents or politicians are willing to do, respond to issues that are so important that he's going to lead on them, even if that's going to cost him votes and risk his re- election or that of his party?

Significant change in Palestine and Israel negotiations means that, in later stages, Obama will have to condemn not just Palestinian violence but also Israeli illegitimate violence and terrorizing. Obama must press for a settlement freeze now and broker an exchange: Palestinian recognition of Israel's existence and security, for Israel's acceptance of UNSC resolutions, a return to pre-1967 borders; this will ultimately mean the dismantling of settlements.

Iran: Some argue that Obama's popularity in the Arab world, following his statements on the Iranian elections last week, has been somewhat compromised. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is hailed by some as a symbol of defiance for his anti-Israel rhetoric and for Iran's nuclear energy program. So why, they ask, when Ahmadinejad enjoys a considerable constituency at home, are U.S. and European governments so eager to contest the election results and support the opposition?

On the other hand, Obama has effectively distanced himself from what some in the Middle East see as the international community's obsession with Iran's election. Obama was more balanced in his approach than others like Germany's Angela Merkel, who was quick to criticize the Iranian regime before the massive street demonstrations and Iran's firing on and killing of its citizens. In contrast, Obama's language escalated as the situation in Iran escalated. He didn't duck but also engaged in a measured and balanced response. However, looking at the broader Middle East, it must also be recognized that much of what Iran has been criticized for occurs elsewhere with some Arab allies, but their actions haven't caused a comparable international uproar. For the U.S. to be credible, it has to be able to consistently say "We do not intervene in countries, but we feel free to limit the kind of aid we give to encourage strong civil societies and democratization, developed in a balanced way."

Despite the war of words between Washington and Tehran, Obama was quoted as saying he thinks dialogue with Iran is still possible. The test will be to see if the administration speaks with one voice; it is still not clear where Clinton and Ross stand on supporting diplomacy and dialogue with a current Iranian administration liable to make such efforts even more difficult.

Egypt: Now that Obama has spoken out regarding Iran, what will he do with allies like Egypt? Will US-Egyptian relations be tested? Will Obama openly criticize Egypt if people are arrested in future elections and there is the same violence and vote rigging that has occurred in the past? Some Egyptians are quick to ask, "Isn't Cairo too important for Obama, who has described President Hosni Mubarak as a force of stability?" Critics note that despite Obama's concern about representative government and human rights, in the weeks prior to his Cairo visit and speech his administration approved an increase of 25% in U.S. military aid to Egypt. They even agreed to Mubarak's stipulation that aid for NGOs be given with no strings attached, enabling the Egyptian government to choose recipients, and thus strengthening the government's ability to regulate non-government organizations! Unless Obama is more discriminating in dealing with authoritarian allies, America may continue to be seen as part of the problem rather than the solution on problems of government accountability, democratization, the rule of law and human rights.

Egyptians speculate whether Gamal Mubarak, the president's younger son and high ranking National Democratic Party official, is perceived in Washington as a possible successor to his father. Though the Bush administration spoke of democratization, they clearly tolerated a skillful use of democratic language (democratization, civil society) by states creating a façade with "government regulated NGOs" or "royal NGOs" while actually strengthening their autocratic control. Is Egypt and Libya preparing to follow the Syrian model for a new form of succession? Instead of military coups, power can now pass from father to son.

As rumors fly and many people think Gamal Mubarak will succeed his father, many wonder, "What does Washington think; where does the administration stand"? The Mubarak government and American neocons persistently warn of the dangers posed by the only successful electoral alternative, the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite the Mubarak government's consistent repression and continued arbitrary arrests of Brotherhood members, (who are then regularly acquitted by Egypt's more independent courts), and despite government manipulation of laws governing professional associations and even cancellation of elections, the Brotherhood has remained non-violent. It remains a formidable presence and player in power politics.

"What should Egyptians be doing?" asked a prominent Egyptian journalist and publisher at a press conference in Cairo for the Arabic publication of one of my recent books, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think? (co-authored with Dalia Mogahed). At one level, I welcomed the opportunity to respond because the question reflects a deeper issue. "Good question, I said, but an equally important question is 'What do you think you should be doing?"

A common criticism of the Bush administration was that it operated unilaterally. Aware of this, Obama, spoke of the need for the US to work in partnership with others. Change in U.S.-Muslim relations and within the Muslim world itself can only come from a sense of shared responsibility. Recognizing the extent to which misguided Western policies have affected political and economic development does not distract from the need for leaders and citizens in the region to promote political, socioeconomic and religious reform. Outside powers can assist and facilitate but authoritarianism, repression, corruption, lack of transparency, and extremism that paralyze change can only be reversed from within a society. In many Muslim countries -- in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere -- citizens have grown up knowing only one president or ruling family. They have lived and struggle to survive or hope to thrive within the state's established parameters on freedom of thought and speech, assembly and action. The costs for public criticism, or calls for reform include imprisonment, torture, loss of jobs for the reformer as well as family members when the government is the chief employer.

The good news, as witnessed by Obama's reception globally and the response of vast majorities of Muslims, is that the president has been welcomed enthusiastically. This is counterbalanced by an awareness of the legacy he has inherited and has to turn around and the realization that success in dealing with the Middle East and broader Muslim world will be affected by diverse hurdles, a Congress many of whose members are uncritical supporters of Israel, a wounded Republican opposition bent on its resurrection through a concerted opposition to the president, and many Arab and Muslim governments, and the ranting and acts of terrorists.

Having raised the expectations of people globally, there's a new yard stick by which the Obama administration and America will be judged. If he doesn't deliver significantly, disillusionment and anti-Americanism will increase among the very people who were euphoric at his election but will then feel totally betrayed. Obama's failure will play into those who declare, "Well, he's just a new face with cosmetic changes but no real, significant improvement in American foreign policy.

Laurence Leamer: You Can Change History: An Open Letter to Congresswoman Nita Lowey

2009-06-01T12:06:18Z

Dear Congresswoman Lowey:

On June 18th you will have an opportunity to change the course of history.

You are an astute, principled politician who for years has voted for what is right and true, not what is always popular. Time and again you have seen your judgment vindicated by history. You have stood bravely as champion of an America that reaches out to the rest of the world. You voted for NAFTA when that took courage. You were for an opening to Communist China when many in Congress considered that a betrayal. And now you can create the basis of a bold, new Peace Corps that can play a crucial role in the world in the 21st century.

You and I are of the same generation, Rep. Lowey. We were young when President Kennedy in his inauguration address said: "To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." And then Kennedy sent out the Peace Corps as his most visible manifestation of that pledge. Cynics thought it would never work, that young Americans were too soft and self-indulgent, but within five years there were 15,000 volunteers and there are 195,000 returned volunteers who have proven the naysayers wrong.

There are only 7,500 volunteers out there now doing good and valuable work, and as an institution the Peace Corps is nothing like the bold force of the Kennedy years. There are 20 countries clamoring for volunteers including Indonesia and Sierra Leone but there is no money for new programs. But with a forceful new director, much needed resources, fundamental reform, and the pent up energy and ideas of thousands, the Peace Corps can engage the world of the 21st century with valor, originality and concern. In doing so we will show that we are a generous people who send out our young and our not so young to teach and to learn about the rest of our world, and that in helping we receive.

The Obama administration's Peace Corps transition document is a blueprint of what must be done and how it can be done. (http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/babbles/2009/05/26/pc-transition-team-report-to-obama/) "The Peace Corps, on the threshold of its 50th Anniversary, can once again inspire a new generation of Americans and play a highly significant role at this critical crossroad in American and world history," the report begins. The document is unstinting in its criticisms of the entrenched bureaucracy and details how it must change. If it is to grow, the Peace Corps must reform, and to reform it must grow. And then the transition report calls for "expanding programs in the 76 counties with current Peace Corps presence and starting Peace Corps programs in at least 25 additional countries." It will take money to do this, and the report calls for an added $90 million immediately "to restore harmful cuts," then $550 million in fiscal year 2010 before rising to "its optimal operating level as a $700 million or more agency."

As the Democratic Chairwoman of the House State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, you have been given a Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill for $49 billion. In a time of economic austerity and difficulty, for every dime you increase one part of this bill, you have to find a dime to take away elsewhere, and in doing so for every group or entity you make happy, you upset somebody else.

The original bill included $373 million for the Peace Corps in fiscal year 2010, an amount that would essentially allow no expansion of volunteers and no significant reform. Rep. Sam Farr, a returned volunteer, has written a bill cosponsored by an extraordinary 120 of his colleagues calling for $450 million, a major increase but far less than that suggested in the Obama transition report. In the authorization subcommittee, Chairman Howard Berman took the brave step of amending the bill to include the $450 million for the Peace Corps.

Now it's your turn. Members of your committee are already on board, and you'll have strong support. If you appropriate the $450 million, it will highly likely become part of the final bill, and you will have been responsible more than any one person in giving the Peace Corps a new birth.

We are everywhere. Millions of us. Volunteers. Former volunteers. Family. Friends. Concerned Americans. People who have known Volunteers and their work. We are in your district. We are in your state. We are all over America. We are all over the world, from Peru to Mongolia, Fiji to Ghana. We are watching and waiting.

We don't want to tie up your phones. That's why we're asking only your constituents to call 202 225-6506 and express their sentiments. We're asking those whose Congress member is on your committee to call that representative; their names and numbers are listed below. All others we're asking to email Lowey@morepeacecorps.org to express their feelings. We will put together a book of these emails and get them to you and to your colleagues.

If you appropriate the full amount, your decision will be an historic landmark on the pathway to a bold new Peace Corps placing its flag in climes it has never gone, speaking languages it has never spoken, doing work and cooperative endeavors it has never done before. It is in your hands, and I have every confidence that you will do what you have always done.

Sincerely,

Laurence Leamer
Peace Corps Nepal (1964-66)

P.S. If you have not seen the Obama Transition Report, it can be read at: http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/babbles/2009/05/26/pc-transition-team-report-to-obama/

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Rep. Nita Lowey 202 225-6506
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.202 225-0773
Rep. Adam Schiff 202 225-4176
Rep. Ben Chandler 202 225-4706
Rep. Steven Rothman 202 225-5061
Rep. Barbara Lee 202 225-2661
Rep. Betty McCollum 202 225-6631
Rep. David Obey 202 225-3365
Rep. Kay Granger 202 225-5071
Rep. Mark Steven Kirk 202 225-4835
Rep. Ander Crenshaw 202 225-2501
Rep. Denny Rehberg 202 225-3211

Beth Borzone: Is the Left Dead?

2009-05-26T14:35:51Z

Is the Left dead? Dr. McClaughlin wanted to know. He asked his "token leftie," Eleanor Clift:

"How badly has Obama damaged his standing with the Democratic left wing?"

The left is not happy, but they're not going anywhere, Ms. Clift responded.

"I think the left has a body of decisions that he's made that they're not happy with. But they're still ecstatic that they have him in the White House, so it's not any major damage."

Dr. McLaughlin: They're not going to go anywhere.

Ms. Clift: No...

Monica Crowley of the right, gleefully suggested that the left is outraged and will be increasingly disappointed by President Obama:

"Well, I think the left is going bananas, based on what I've seen in the blogosphere on the left, because it looks increasingly like Bush was right on a whole range of counterterrorism initiatives that he put in place. From Guantanamo Bay to military tribunals, warrantless wiretapping, rendition, it really looks like Bush was right. And I think that the left increasingly is going to be very agitated by the course that this president is taking."

Nice try, Monica!

This absurd dialogue on The McClaughlin Group shows that the talking heads of the mainstream media just don't get that the political landscape has changed in the internet age.

In the internet age, it's the people who circulated blogs, texts, and e-mails, using them to recruit family members and friends, to register voters, to canvass in PA, and most importantly, to get out the vote. This generation of citizenry, more than any other, feels invested in their president. They helped get him there and they are going to hold his feet to the fire and get the change they want.

Recent events in Washington have only emboldened the left, the grassroots left.

As a member of a few local grassroots organizations in my area, here's the scoop from the ground.

Yes, most of the people I talk to are disappointed with some of the President's recent decisions, but they still love him. They see him as a person of conviction working within a flawed system dominated by moneyed interests, and he cannot make the change we need without strong support.

The grassroots left feels that they are going to have to make their positions known louder than ever to combat the rich and powerful lobbyists seen in Washington. And many grassrooters feel, perhaps optimistically so, that this is exactly what their President, a former community organizer himself, expects of them.

They have absorbed the message he espoused upon accepting the Democratic nomination for President:

"You have shown what history teaches us, that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.
Change happens -- change happens because the American people demand it, because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.
America, this is one of those moments."

Yes, this is one of those moments. We've seen this moment recently in the fight for healthcare reform. When an expert on the Single Payer Option was not included in Senate Finance Committee Meetings, every day citizens, doctors, nurses, even community organizers, went to the Senate Finance Committee on their own to make their desire for a Single Payer Plan known. As a result, eight of the activists, including 3 doctors were arrested. Mainstream media barely covered it, but e-mails, and YouTube videos promulgated the internet, and citizens started calling, e-mailing, and faxing their Congresspeople in droves.

A group called "Health Justice" claimed in an e-mail last week to have gotten its members to send over 30,000 e-faxes to Congress.

"Your nearly 30 thousand faxes as of this morning are overwhelming the Washington fax machines time and time again... We also know your phone calls are getting through because we have heard that Baucus' office simply hangs up whenever anyone says 'single payer."

In a later e-mail, the group claimed to have inspired 4,000 calls to the White House.
On May 14th, Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), the California Nurses Association, and Physicians for a National Health Care Plan organized a rally in Washington D.C.
At the rally, a freshman Democratic Congressman from upstate New York, confirmed that the left is going to have to speak loud and strong to get the change they need:

"Allow us to get President Obama on the right track. Give him the political cover he needs to make the tough decisions."

Well, if political cover means thousands of people showing up in Washington D.C., Donna Smith, and the California Nurses' Association, are ready to oblige. In an interview after the rally, Smith said, " The people still matter. We do matter in this process, and it's the only thing. If we give up, then we do hand it over to the corporate interests. No human rights struggle in the history of this country's been an easy one. This is a human rights struggle. We're going to win it, but we're going to have to keep fighting and struggling and speaking out. There may have to be more people arrested. There may have to be more brave nurses out there speaking out, but we're going to win this."

Back in primary season, before Barack Obama had won the Democratic nomination, Michelle Obama gave a speech covered only by C-Span. She talked about change and what a Barack Obama presidency would look like.

"Change is hard," she prophesized, "...but in order to embrace this man and a different way of politics, we have to come a little bit of the way... A Barack Obama presidency will be 70% him and 30% us. We have to be ready to be that 30%...

We've got to be ready to put down that cynicism... we can't afford it...

Everybody has to be engaged in the political process, not just Tuesday, but every single day. If you have any leaders who want you to believe that all you have to do is vote for them and go back to your lives as usual, be suspicious, because you have to be at the table of democracy forever. Because the minute you turn your back and you walk away, somebody is going to come and take your seat and they are going to make decisions about your lives that have nothing to do with you... I'm sorry. It requires work! You're going to have to do this work!"

Well, the grassrooters on the Left, are alive and well, and ready to work. And, Ms. Clift, they are going somewhere, to Washington D.C., in fact, on June 25th to demand healthcare reform along with workers, organized through their unions. Get ready, that other 30% is coming!

Darin Murphy: Obama vs Cheney: Future vs Past

2009-05-21T17:11:41Z

We couldn't ask for a better favor this morning than the one handed to us by Barack Obama and Dick Cheney. At no other time, not even during the election, have we been able to see such a clear juxtaposition between where we are now as a country and where we used to be. Election '08 was little more than a theater of the absurd that ended promptly on November 4th. This morning, however, was real life, a real opportunity to stand in the age of reason and look back vividly on the age of fear, spite and distortion. We saw a current leader and policy maker lay out every detail of what he stands for, what he has done, what he intends to do and refrain from doing and exactly why, whether you agree or not. He grounded his policy stance in his constitutional scholarship and took nothing personally. He made it absolutely clear that his policies will be made in accordance with the rule of law and not the other way around. We learned that Gitmo is not jot one problem but a series of problems, each of which have to be treated differently. He reminded America and the world of the simple truth that nothing is just that simple; that reducing issues to black and white terms while ignoring important details of color will do nothing but endanger us in the long run. And he did so with respect for our troops and our intelligence.

Immediately afterward, we got a healthy dose of nostalgia from 2004, a rehashing of a linear argument that was long ago lost. A man who claimed to have no political agenda opened his remarks with a barb about the length of the Commander-in chief's speech. Indeed, the former vice president's total time at the lectern was maybe a fourth of the president's, but the president had a lot more ground to cover, not to mention a lot more ground to stand on. Cheney's only goal was to defend his torture policies, and apart from that there wasn't really much else he could talk about. He couldn't talk about Iraq, which he only mentioned once in passing, brushing off the whole six-year debacle as "high and low points." He couldn't talk about the real reason he ordered the waterboarding of one guy over 100 times -- to get him to say that Iraq was linked to Al Queda and justify a bogus invasion. He couldn't talk about those things because they're political cyanide, so he had to fill his time with fear-induced anger, inaccurate claims, righteous indignation and cheap shots at Europe. From the outset he played his trump card: 9/11. He played it over and over again as if he and the other 19% of Americans who support him are the only ones who remember it. They aren't.

But this was clearly Cheney playing to his audience, for it's all he has left. The bully pulpit now belongs to the new president, and all Cheney can do is preach to his choir. That's why he spoke from within the cozy confines of the American Enterprise Institute while Obama enjoys the broader stage of the National Archives. But it goes deeper than that. Obama gets the bigger platform and the longer time slot because more people are inclined to listen to him, and that's because he's inclined to listen to more people. Cheney and his president didn't want to listen to anyone. That is why his era is bygone and his influence on our future is dwindling.

Sandy Maisel: Obama: Agent of Change or Compromiser in Chief

2009-05-20T15:21:04Z

Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, Barack Obama. What do they have in common? They represent the sum-total of all Presidents of the United States who have gone to the White House from the Congress since 1900.

You can add three more names to that list -- Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerry Ford -- three Presidents who succeeded to the presidency but whose governmental careers were dominated by service in Congress.

Are there lessons to be learned from the experiences of Obama's five predecessors whose pre-presidential careers were largely legislative, not executive? On the one hand, it is hard to say. Harding's brief administration was rife with scandal; Kennedy's, cut short before his potential was reached; Ford's dominated by the shadow of Richard Nixon. Truman and Johnson might prove better models; they each were elected in their own right and governed with a keen awareness of working with the Congress. But, Obama's career in the Senate was much shorter than theirs and was dominated by his running for President. Not much there to go on.

On the other hand, Obama's style in his first four months in office points to the significance of his understanding of the Congress.

Not only is he the first President in nearly half a century to come to the White House directly from the Senate, but he has deliberately placed former legislators in prominent roles in his administration. Vice President Biden had a 36-year career in the Senate before moving to the Executive Branch. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gave up the third-ranking position among House Democrats to follow Obama to the White House. Two Cabinet officers -- Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of the Interior Salazar -- came from the Senate; two others -- Secretary of Labor Solis and Secretary of Transportation LaHood -- left the House to join the administration team. Numerous staff members led by OMB director Peter Orszag, who headed the Congressional Budget Office in the 110th Congress, and Senior Advisor Pete Rouse, who had worked not only for then-Senator Obama but also former Democratic leader Tom Daschle, have had long-time, high-level Hill experience.

Much of what has gone on in the first months of this administration can be attributed to the governing style of these leaders. They come out of a highly partisan, contentious experience in the Congress. But they also come out of an institution in which leaders know that they must compromise in order to get ahead.

Liberals have questioned whether Obama can be the agent of change he promised during the campaign. Or will he be just another politician willing to accept half a loaf?

The answer is in a combination of his style and the experience he and his team bring to governing. When candidate Obama first talked about "change," he was talking about changing the way things are done in Washington. He was talking about changing the tone of politics. And President Obama, Obama the Cool, has maintained a steadfast focus on that kind of change. He has reached out to the Republicans; he has remained calm when Minority Leader Boehner has demanded a united front against his policies.

And he remains committed that more can be done by lowering partisan rhetoric than by flaming ideological passions. Look at his two commencement addresses last week. At Arizona State he used self-deprecating humor to alleviate the concerns over whether he had been slighted by the university's not bestowing an honorary degree. In South Bend, where Notre Dame's awarding the honorary degree aroused passionate opposition, he sought to bring the dialogue to a "common ground." To change the tone of the debate.

He assumes that the opposition will come around if the nation accepts his tone.
But he and his staff also know the legislative process. The issues on the table in the months ahead -- health care and energy policy, closing of Guantanamo, changing the face of our military, education policy, the list is all but endless -- will require working across the partisan aisles in Congress. Obama has shown he is ready to do that -- and if he is successful, he might not get the whole loaf, but he will get much more than others anticipate.

The United States government -- political scientists have been teaching their students for generations -- involves separated institutions sharing powers. The President is clearly the agenda setter, but he is not, as President Bush tried to be, "the decider." In Richard Neustadt's classic phrase, which President Kennedy never forgot, "presidential power is the power to persuade." The verdict on Obama is clearly still out, but the early returns are positive.

L. Sandy Maisel is director of the Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement at Colby College.

Janet Ritz: Searching for Relevancy in an Obama World

2009-05-18T15:00:47Z

I spoke with a friend the other day, one of those rare individuals who'd passed his 87th birthday with a clear perspective on life that went beyond even his years, and heard from him a frustration that has been echoed both by others of his generation and by those who are not yet of age to drink or vote.

The question they've been asking is: what happened?

What happened to the values for which the WWII generation fought and died? What happened to our principals about saving money and living within our means? What happened to fighting for freedom of religion and thought and tolerance? What happened to personal responsibility and the willingness to sacrifice to meet a shared goal? What happened to the moral centers of those in charge for the last few decades that made them think they could use the earth as their personal or corporate garbage dump, their offshore bank account, their property to pillage?

My friend bemoaned the generation that had followed his, as trust-fund babies given every opportunity after a hard-won victory, who did not understand or care about the sacrifices made to provide them with the right to become something more than their fathers.

Instead, he complained, they squandered it for short term gain and immediate gratification.

I have heard the same from those younger than me. How could so much have been lost so fast? What about us? What will happen to our lives and our children now that our fathers and mothers have spent their inheritance? Who broke America, who broke the world, who is going to fix it?

The answer most people in America give, according to the polls, is Barack Obama. There is a lot to be said for his accomplishments in so short a time -- increased national debt notwithstanding (given the enormity of the problems he has inherited) -- but that's not, I suspect, the answer he would give. The president would say and has said that we all have to change to get out of this mess.

We have to go forward in a new way.

I would say we also have to look backward to those of the WWII generation who acted with such responsibility toward our country and the world and who thought the victory they were leaving to their children would be safe in our hands.

Sadly, that wasn't to be the case.

I had a strange reaction to President Obama's election (after the cheering stopped). I sat down and asked myself: what now? So much of the last eight years for me and many of my colleagues has had to do with what we were fighting against. The Orwellian tactics of the "Blue Skies Initiative" that supported polluters. The Jungian sense that something horrible was taking place in their preemptive wars (now proven to be prescient) for which we would have to account.

Corporations did not help. There, many of the same generation that was leading us into the abyss came to the table as if at a feeding trough set out of a sense of entitlement. Some were cognizant of their impact and tried to do the right thing, some did not care, and others were like Daisy in the Great Gatsby, unaware of their arrogance as they insisted that a cold winter in their backyard meant climate change wasn't real (ugh) and wondered why people losing their jobs through no fault of their own would think they had a right to refinance.

After all, weren't they now bad risks?

No thought to the fact that the bad risks had been those in the banks who had gambled on credit default swaps or mortgage-back securities set to fail, all of which led them to cut off credit, in some cases, to businesses with customers but with no way to finance their payrolls, who then had to lay off those that the Daisys of the world are now citing as the bad risk.

And don't get me started on the second mortgages pushed by banks with assumption of the ability to refinance down the line (can anyone spell: bait and switch?), which the president is now trying to address before the prime rate rises and tens of millions of homeowners find themselves unable to meet their monthly payments when a simple consolidation that was either promised or alluded to at the time, would keep them in their homes. Add that waiting shoe to drop to upcoming credit card defaults and the anticipated (by some) crash of commercial real estate, and you can see that we're not out of the woods or the forest or the trees that we have trained ourselves over time not to see.

But what do people like my 87 year old friend, who do know the forest for the trees, and my 17 year old friends still in school and myself and my colleagues who fought so long and hard to achieve a new paradigm see now that the party's over?

I've watched the reaction in the blogosphere to some of the more controversial decisions made by our new president. The release of torture memos, the reversal of the same on pictures and military tribunals, the appointment of an environmental lawyer who works for General Electric (which needed a better headline than: Superfund Lawyer Gets Nominated. Anyone care to mention she had served in the DOJ environmental role during the Clinton Administration and we may need to see some vetting before we pass judgment?), the go-ahead for mountain-top removal mining (grrr).

I'm not happy about much of that. In fact, I'd venture to say I'm confused, worried and waiting for an explanation that makes sense. But I do not feel the requirement to become both enraged and outraged, whether through the insistence of the 24-hour news cycle or by those in the blogosphere. This is what I mean by my search for relevancy: Eight years of having someone to point at (Bush/Cheney, et al) and say: See! There's the problem (and it was), was an easier proposition than looking in the mirror and asking the question:

How am I the problem?

That changed for me after I read a remarkable poetry collection by American writer, George Witte, entitled Deniability, which forced me to explore my inner experience of the last eight years. How much had I acknowledged? How much had I denied? How much was in favor of writing the gotcha article that would point out the deficiencies in others' behaviors without any understanding of my own part in the events upon which I was reporting?

These are questions that cannot be answered and then forgotten. They must become part of a paradigm shift that is necessary for everyone if were are to survive as the nation and world our grandparents fought to preserve: What am I doing to combat climate change? How have I saved instead of spent today? What will happen if I don't spend in a consumer economy? Is my business, my office, my home as green as it could be?

How do I fight policy I do not like with a president I like very much?

What is my part in this new paradigm?

It is easier to find someone to complain about than to contemplate one's own part in the mess in which we find ourselves. The truth is we were all at the party. Some of us were in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms where torture was sanctioned and they must not be sanctioned for their choice in that. Others were downstairs at the chips and dip table where they used their credit cards to get extra guacamole they could have done without, while either closing their eyes and ears to the screams coming from halfway across the world or protesting against it as they put down plastic for yet more chips and dip.

We don't know how to fight against bad policy after the last eight years without demonizing those with which whose policies we disagree. Instead, we post our outrage that the fantasy Obama we have constructed in our minds does not meet up to our shaky version of reality.

President Obama, in my opinion, is doing the best he can in what are the most difficult circumstances since President Roosevelt inherited the legacy of Hoover. He is not perfect. He will not always, maybe not even often, come up with policies that please my sense of purity. But I acknowledge that he is the president of us all and that he has been tasked to govern responsibly in a globalized world. I know that means I won't get everything I want right away and I am willing to give him some (not unlimited) time to work it out.

Which brings me my path to relevancy in an Obama world. I will be a responsible investigative journalist who reports on policy and shenanigans and all the things that come with the Daisys and the Toms in the Gatsby of our fractured world. I will question policies even from those I support if those policies deserved to be questioned. But I will not look for a way to turn those for whom I've voted into a demonized figures upon whom I can then comfortably focus my unresolved emotional issues of the past eight years (in lieu of my own culpability) instead of doing my part to see that good policy is passed in our shared effort for a better future.

This is what my 87 year old friend had expected of his children and what his grandchildren must see happen if they are to have anything to work with from our legacy. The party is over. The bill has come. We have a participatory democracy again thanks to the courage of one man who ran for office despite the danger that represented to him and his family.

We must all participate if we want to be relevant in an Obama world.

More on this topic at The Environmentalist

Jim Lichtman: Obama's 'First 100 Days': A Closer Look, Part II

2009-05-15T17:52:22Z

Last week I shared the results of a new poll that UCSB Capps Center Director Wade Clark Roof and I commissioned Zogby International to take: "Integrity, Leadership, Trust." We asked more than 3,300 Americans to grade both President Obama and Congress based on the qualities and issues they considered most important from a poll taken November, 2008.

Last week's commentary revealed the "quality" grades: Mr. Obama scored 58% positive numbers on honesty and integrity and 59% positive marks on leadership. Congress received 75% negative numbers on honesty and a 77% negative rating on integrity.

The top three issues that Americans consider most important: the economy, the war in Iraq and healthcare reform.

On the issue of "fixing the economy," respondents were split as to whether they give Mr. Obama a positive (50%) or negative (49%) rating on his leadership.

More than half, 56% of those polled, rate Mr. Obama's leadership in "bringing the troops home from the Middle East" as positive, while 41% rate it as negative. Concerning healthcare, an issue Mr. Obama campaigned on, respondents are split as to whether they rate the president's leadership in reforming healthcare as positive (46%) or negative (49%).

When asked about Mr. Obama's ability to "improve America's image in the world," another issue Americans deemed important last November, 59% were confident in his performance, and 57% were confident that the president could "improve international relations by meeting with foreign leaders."

When it comes to "working with Congress," Mr. Obama received 63% positive marks compared to a 52% negative score for Congress "working with the president."

When asked, "How satisfied are you with the leadership of President Obama" after 100 days in office, half (53%) say they are satisfied with Obama's leadership, two-fifths of which say they are very satisfied (39%). However, 46% say they are dissatisfied with his leadership, two-fifths of which say they are not at all satisfied (39%).

To the question, "Do you believe President Obama makes decisions based on what's best for the country or based on what helps him politically," 50% say they believe Obama makes decisions based on what's best for the country, while slightly less believe he bases his decisions on what helps him politically (45%).

When asked to rate Mr. Obama's ability "to do the right thing in handling a crisis," more than half (55%) expressed confidence, while two-fifths (43%) said they were not confident.

Finally, when asked if Mr. Obama is moving the country in the right direction, respondents are relatively split. 52% are confident compared to 47% who are not confident. With this question, most respondents fall at one end of the spectrum or the other, as a third (35%) say they are "very confident" that Obama is moving the country in the right direction, and two-fifths (39%) saying they are "not at all confident."

Overall, the Capps study shows that Americans are encouraged about the start to Mr. Obama's presidency because they like him personally. They trust him, think he is smart and has the best interests of the country at heart. On the other hand, they are split about whether he has the right solutions to fix the current economic troubles. They also have questions about his approach to health care reform. Although the results of both issues are far too early to be seen, they will continue to be closely scrutinized.

The survey supports the fact that Americans still hold their Congressional leaders in generally low esteem. A key indicator comes in response to the question asking voters to rate Congress on "restoring the public's trust in government." Congress scored a dismal 81% negative rating.

As the Capps study shows, Americans are still craving honesty, integrity, and leadership -- and as long as Mr. Obama doesn't stumble, his ratings will remain high. One important aspect of this has been Obama's willingness to speak plainly and directly to the American people about the issues they care about most including a sustainable economic recovery. As long as he is perceived as communicating clearly and honestly, he should sustain the trust of the American people.

However, the results of his various economic efforts as well as a viable healthcare plan will be the next great test Mr. Obama will face.

Jim Lichtman writes and speaks on ethics to corporations, associations and schools. His weekly commentaries can be found at www.ethicsStupid.com.

Inside Obama's Court Deliberations: Sotomayor Most Mentioned

2009-05-01T18:47:28Z

Upon hearing news that Justice David Souter would be retiring at term's end, senior White House aides hastily convened a meeting in the West Wing on Thursday night to discuss potential replacements, according to an administration official.

The meeting, in which the steps for filling the vacancy were discussed, was just one step in a Supreme Court planning process that the administration official described as intensive and months old.

Indeed, Barack Obama began preparing for the reality that now confronts him -- an opening on the country's highest court -- before he was sworn in as president, back in December. In transition meetings in both Chicago and Washington, aides to Obama identified and researched potential candidates to fill the Supreme Court bench. Obama was directly involved in the deliberations, said the official, offering guidance on the types of Court nominees would meet his standards and even personally suggesting names.

According to a Democratic strategist with knowledge of the process, many possibilities have been bandied about in these "process groups." But the one most often mentioned has been Sonia Sotomayor, the odds-on favorite who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

The Democrat noted that, in a stroke of prescience or just plain luck, the White House had actually been preparing for a vacancy to pop up sometime during the summer. "They were planning as if they were getting an opening before the end of the summer."

In this respect, they were not caught off-guard upon hearing news of Souter's impending departure. The details of how Obama and his aides have prepared themselves for a Supreme Court retirement reflects a no-stone-left-unturned approach on the part of the administration, as well as an tacit acknowledgment that filling a Court vacancy is one of the more daunting tasks a president faces.

Upon taking office, according to the administration source, the White House intensified the effort it had started during the transition. In meetings in the office of chief counsel Greg Craig, officials began reviewing possible nominees, their judicial records, and personal backgrounds.

As the Democratic strategist added, the team was also cognizant that modern-day research tools could effectively turn up information that traditional vetting processes would miss.

"They are looking at all factors," said the strategist, "including the fact that even the biggest online communication tools and sites have grown significantly since the last confirmation effort [during the Bush administration]."

For all the advanced preparation, however, the news that Souter would be the first justice to step down from the Court likely came as a surprise. Early speculation held that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is recovering from surgery for pancreatic cancer, would be the first Obama-era retiree from the bench. But she has vowed to stay on.

Word of Souter's impending departure made its way to the White House via private channels earlier this week. But a formal announcement was not delivered until Friday, when the president entered the White House press briefing room unannounced to tell reporters that the Justice had informed him of his retirement.

Later in the day, the White House released the letter that Souter had penned to the President saying that "when the Supreme Court rises for the summer recess this year. I intend to retire from regular active service as a Justice."

"I mean to continue to render substantial judicial service as an Associate Justice," Souter concluded.

As for filling the seat, the administration official said that the White House was confident that with consultation with the Senate, a new Justice could be confirmed by the first Monday of October, when the Court is back in session.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Philip Radford: The Whole World in His Hands

2009-04-28T12:41:36Z

When 17 heads of government descend on Washington Monday for President Obama's Major Emitters Forum, he will hear the same demand from each of them: that the United States must take big action, immediately, to slash global warming pollution -- or risk putting a real global solution to the global warming crisis at risk.

Even though President Obama was elected on a platform of delivering action on global warming, and has passionately reiterated those pledges since becoming president, he will have to overcome enormous skepticism from his international negotiating partners. At this summit, it is they who will be repeating Ronald Reagan's maxim about Soviet overtures at the beginning of the glasnost era: Trust, but verify.

The presidents and prime ministers have good reason to doubt: for all Obama's talk (and President Clinton's before him) about the urgency of the climate crisis, the United States has done little to nothing to address global warming pollution, even as almost every other developed country has at least started down the road to a green economy.

Of course, there is some reason for hope: the House Energy and Commerce committee is currently debating a bill that could constitute a good first step in the transition to a prosperous clean energy economy if the giveaways for coal and loopholes for polluters are eliminated. And even without the giveaways and loopholes, that bill currently falls short of the 40 percent short-term cuts in U.S. pollution that scientists say is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming: massive droughts, floods, extreme weather, and extinction of endangered species like the polar bear, not to mention a $3.8 trillion drag on the economy.

That bill, however, faces huge challenges: Republicans and even some Democrats with close ties to the coal industry are likely to try to water it down even further. And even if it makes it out of the House intact, it will take all of us standing up together to pull together the 60 votes necessary to pass major legislation in the Senate.

If the United States doesn't take action that matches its responsibility, it's unlikely other countries will meet theirs: China will continue to build new, very dirty coal fired power plants, and tropical countries like Indonesia, Brazil, and the Congo will continue to allow giant agricultural interests to burn down their forests. And the climate will careen out of control.

But President Obama can single-handedly avert that fate with a little political hardball. His Environmental Protection Agency recently declared the climate change does indeed represent a threat to human health and welfare -- giving the Obama administration the authority to unilaterally limit climate pollution through the Clean Air Act.

No negotiation with ornery senators necessary. No bargaining with committee chairmen seeking to protect some home-state polluter that makes big campaign contributions. Just an honest look at the science -- and what it's going to take to deliver future generations a living planet. But so far, the Obama administration has danced around this authority and implied they're only using it as a back-up in case Congress doesn't act.

If Obama is serious about getting other countries to act in concert with the United States to meet this global challenge, that's got to change. A firm declaration that he will regulate carbon dioxide to the maximum extent possible will bring developing countries to the table in a serious way.

It will also ensure that Congress passes a reasonably strong bill: if they don't pass something commensurate with what Obama does through the Clean Air Act, he can just veto it. It's hardball, sure, but it's what it will take to solve this great crisis.

Soren Gordhamer: Obama Zen

2009-04-23T12:14:16Z

I was in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, on the last election day. Busy with work there, I had forgotten the date, and could not understand why I was hearing cheering from outside my guest house in the middle of the night. I learned the news of Obama's victory the next day, and was greeted with shouts of "Obama, Obama," by everyone from store clerks to street cleaners. Many in the region had viewed America's foreign policy as arrogant and out-of touch, and saw hope with a new leader. Now that I was a part of a country that had elected such a leader, overnight I had become cool.

Fortunately, Obama is delivering. In fact, it has become ever more noticeable to me what a different leader he is than any other I have witnessed in my lifetime. This was particularly showcased recently when he attended the Summit of the Americas.

Reading about his trip, it became clear to me: Obama is practicing some serious Zen. No, he did not sit cross-legged at a Zen center during his visit, but he embodied the spirit of Zen, and arguably all major religions, by extending a hand to those that have been viewed as enemies of the U.S in the past, including the outspoken Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Now, I am not necessarily a big fan of Hugo Chavez, nor am I against him, but the fact that Obama shook his hand was not to me, as others suggest, a statement that, "I agree with everything you stand for," but instead expressed, "I acknowledge you as a leader of your country, one that we may not always agree with, but with which we have a relationship. I see you." The Zen of Obama in this situation was to open a door, to see Chavez, and to do what he could from his side to support a healthy engagement.

There are certainly dangerous people in the world that we need to do all we can to protect ourselves from, but if the other side, in this case Chavez, is open to dialogue, why not explore it? For those who argue that Chavez is our "enemy," and should not be addressed, I think Obama showed us that the greatest enemy is not a person or country. As the Buddha said:

"Better than conquering a thousand enemies in battle a thousand times is the man or woman who is able to conquer him or herself."

At the Summit of the Americas, Obama did not conquer Chavez or any other person or country, but he did what is most difficult: he conquered a long-standing hatred by extending a hand.

It could be that dialogue with Chavez turns out to be pointless or unproductive, but to me what matters most is that Obama is willing to let go past grievances in order to open new possibilities.

The Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh advises us that if we are angry with someone, it is good to give that person a gift. While Chavez gave Obama a gift in the form of a book, Obama also gave a gift of openness. The impact is yet to be seen, but it is clearly evident of a new approach to international relationships.

Obama offered us a nice Zen teaching, and as all good Zen teachings, it is one we could all likely put into practice.

***
Soren Gordhamer is the author of Wisdom 2.0: Ancient Secrets for the Creative and Constantly Connected (HarperOne, 2009). Website: http://www.sorengordhamer.com.

Michael B. Laskoff: Obama Gets Real and So Should You

2009-04-20T10:38:46Z

I was consumed in the blast furnace that is the University of Chicago undergraduate experience, where I studied political science. It often wasn't pleasant, and the truth is that the place affected me far more than I cared to admit at the time. My two decades of grey matter were no match for a faculty that got credit for nothing but wielding the intellectual sword. (I'm sure there's plenty of departmental politics as well, but that wasn't my problem.)

President Obama -- too a much more rarefied extent -- must have experienced something similar during his nine years of teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Yes, he's smarter than I am, and his brain was far more developed than mine, when the maroon whip fell. Nevertheless, this is a school with a point of view that communicates remarkably across the faculty as a whole. That's not to say that there isn't plenty of intellectual diversity, but there is one principle that always seems to hold sway -- a fondness for reality over ideology. Cynics beware, that doesn't mean a world without values. Rather, it implies a preference for policies that have a chance in hell of becoming a practical reality. Moreover, it recognizes, in the words of the Rolling Stones, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime you just might find that you get what you need."

With this lens, the first few months of the Obama administration start to snap into focus. On the foreign policy front, he's easing the nonsense with Cuba, burying some of the hatchet with Venezuela and trying to help the Mexicans forestall the development of a narco-state on our southern border. He's clearly sent signals to the Russians -- who seem to understand -- and to the Iranians, who maybe don't. (I fear that the conviction of a US journalist is a reaction by their hardliners to preserve a conflict that helps keep them in power.) As a result of all this, the US is generally more able to concentrate on the truly scary parts of the earth, like North Korea and Pakistan. Both have nuclear weapons and delivery systems: a madman controls the former while no one seemingly controls the latter. Perhaps that's why 25,000 more troops are on their way to Afghanistan: their ultimate destination may be Pakistan, with a mission to secure the nuclear weapons if the Taliban prevails.

Domestically, it's also clear that affection for reality prevails. As a result, there has been huge activity on the financial crisis, much of which isn't working but some of which is. And anyone who has listened to the President discuss the budget knows that he has laid out a ridiculously ambitious agenda, full in the knowledge that he's going to have to trade much of it away to get Congress to fund some of it He's made it abundantly clear that he's going to be a hard ass when it comes to energy, health care, education and the environment. To get something done on those fronts -- all of which require urgent attention -- he'll play ball. In other areas, he'll give ground. For those of us who have waited 8 years for good news, that can be frustrating, but it's the right strategy for a realistic president confronted with difficult times.

Norman Horowitz: The House I Live In

2009-04-19T16:59:59Z

What is America to me
A name, a map, or a flag I see
A certain word, democracy
What is America to me

Lyrics by: Abel Meeropol

Well into my 77th year I continue to be an idealist and I continue to be disappointed at so much of what we have done as a nation.

I was raised thinking that we were "the good guys" and that our country "did no wrong" and in retrospect I was mistaken.

This morning on NPR I listened to a piece concerning the anniversary of the "massacre" at Columbine. Part of the theme of the discussion was about the killing of innocents at the school.

Bleeding heart liberal that I have become, I had a variety of uncomfortable thoughts about the incident. Here are some of them.

The "scare" word in the fifties until the fall of the Soviet Union in the nineties was "communism." If it was your desire to vilify someone completely you would call them "a Jewish, homosexual Communist." What could be worse than that?

While I appreciate the actual Communist threat, was it in retrospect acceptable that we killed well over 100,000 American boys and girls in Korea and Vietnam in order to stop the Communist "hordes?"

Now, I understand that I have simplified what were a series of challenges to our survival as a nation, nevertheless...

In the 21st century, we have successfully arranged to substitute "terrorism" for "Communism" as a threat to our society. Under the "banner" of fighting "terrorism"
we validated our killing of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq. Will someone pleas tell me how we were fighting terrorism by killing and destroying another generation of innocents?

While I would mourn those needlessly killed at Columbine, I also mourn the killings of theirs and ours in the pursuit of ... what exactly?

If we are indeed "the good guys" why have we been physically and mentally abusing people in our custody?

While on a roll I would wonder why we of all people have held prisoners and created a name for them. This is so much in keeping with the Bush administrations naming their outrageous activities by calling these prisoners "enemy combatants."

For me the issue of the torture is not its legality or illegality, it is a matter of right or wrong. It is most certainly the wrong thing for Americans to do. What we have done is shameful, and I am ashamed, and we all should be ashamed.

Neil Simon wrote a play called Plaza Suite. In it a woman married for 25 years says something like the following to her husband: "Of course I know you are having an affair with your secretary. I am so disappointed in you. Every man has an affair with their secretary. I somehow expected more of you than that."

Looking back to so much that we as a country have done leads me to the same conclusion which is:

Other nations have destroyed and murdered so many yet I somehow expected so much more from our country, The United States Of America.

Listen to the Frank Sinatra recording of The House I Live in and see if tears do not come to your eyes.

Sadly we have not behaved like the "good guys" that as a child I believed us to be.

In retrospect will someone please explain how we, in the last sixty years, became a ruthless warrior nation who has managed to validate our killing of innocents?

I am a bleeding heart liberal who oversimplifies complex matters which allows for the existence of conscience over expedience!

Norman Horowitz

Jerry Weissman: Beware of Jokes - II

2009-04-14T15:44:25Z

In what seems like an extension of his election campaign, President Obama -- in an effort to fulfill his promise to be accessible to the electorate -- has been popping up all over the television tube. Since he took office, he has been seen from the West Wing of the White House, in Air Force One, in Europe for the G-20, on Sixty Minutes, and, most notably for the purpose of this post, as the first sitting president to appear on The Tonight Show. By sitting in Jay Leno's guest chair, the president entered the risky world of comedy.

The previous post, which cautioned about the many risks of trying to be funny, included even self-deprecating humor -- a technique Barack Obama has often used successfully when speaking alone. But with Leno and without his much-heralded teleprompter system, Obama left himself open to the vagaries of spontaneous dialogue. Sure enough, one exchange went awry.

Discussing the amenities in the White House, Leno asked, "Now, are they going to put in a basketball court -- I imagine the bowling alley has been just burned and closed down."

The laughter from the audience signaled that everyone understood that Leno was poking fun at Obama about his poor performance at a bowling alley in Pennsylvania during the Democratic primary campaign. Obama played along with Leno by responding in deadpan, "No, no. I have been practicing ... I bowled a 129."

Leno took it up a notch, feigning how impressed he was by applauding and saying, "No, that's very good. Yes. That's very good, Mr. President."

The audience responded with more laughter.

Continuing to play along, Obama broke into a big smile and said, "It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something."

This time, his attempt at self-deprecating humor backfired, and Obama and his staff immediately realized it. Politico.com reported that the president called Special Olympics Chairman Tim Shriver to apologize before the taped program was broadcast. Simultaneously, Bill Burton, the Deputy White House Press Secretary, told reporters that, "the president had 'made an offhand remark making fun of his own bowling that was in no way intended to disparage the Special Olympics.'"

Beware of jokes.

Rob Asghar: Obama Shows the World's Muslims a New American Face

2009-04-08T16:20:05Z

As Barack Obama declares that the United States of America "is not and never will be at war with Islam," his peacemaking efforts are failing with precisely those camps in the Muslim world and the West who find a cosmic war to be far more profitable personally than a sober peace.

Robert Spencer, perhaps the most rabid of the Western anti-Muslim, uh, "scholars," used his noxious Front Page magazine forum to express his bitter disappointment in Obama's charitable words about Islam yesterday in Turkey. Franklin Graham spoke for many Americans when he famously denounced Islam in its entirely as a "very evil and wicked religion," and it would be a stretch to say that such persons would be happy with Obama's efforts to offer himself as a new "crypto-Muslim" face for their nation.

Yet Obama, even as a transformational president, is merely channeling the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson observed that his concept of American religious liberty "meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu, and infidel of every denomination." That's good news for all of us infidels.

And George Washington helped negotiate 1797's Treaty of Tripoli relating to Barbary piracy, which includes these powerful words:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen and as the said States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Christian rightists deny or minimize Washington's personal involvement in that treaty and point out that it was signed by John Adams instead. In any event, the words were adopted. And two years later, U.S. consul William Eaton would assure Muslims, during ongoing conflicts with Barbary pirates, "Be assured that the God of the Americans and of the Mohometans is the same; the one true and omnipotent God."

Ah, but that is too sober and reasoned to work with American audiences who combine religious zeal with flag-waving. And the reason the Muslim world hasn't been able to get comfortable with American attempts to remake the world since 9/11 is because of the double-talk within the American camp that is most intent on clubbing the Muslim world into Western-style democracy: One element of those camps (the Bush 41 camp) seemed to genuinely believe Muslims could be democratic; but their alliance with the Robert Spencers and Mark Steyns of the world, who deny that Islamic civilization has any redeeming features, confirmed for the Muslim world that Islam was under attack.

Now, a new face for the U.S., which speaks a new vocabulary, offers a new path forward. Trust won't happen instantly, but Obama's ability to identify ethnically and emotionally with that part of the world, along with his ability to articulate American tolerance that goes back to the founding fathers, means that we're on our way.

Robyn Hillman-Harrigan: Sons of Cuba-Interview with Director Andrew Lang

2009-04-07T10:55:24Z

I spent the weekend in North Carolina at the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival and had the great pleasure of getting to see many inspiring and thought provoking films. Sons of Cuba was one of the highlights. It is a film about child boxers, who are training to be Olympic fighters in the last years of Fidel Castro's reign. The boys are in the under 12 league, their weights have to stay below 32kg (70 pounds) and they live at a state sponsored boxing academy. A boarding school for the poor, the boys eat, sleep and sometimes starve to box. Yet, the relationships that are portrayed within the film are extremely loving.

The young men have a pronounced expression of camaraderie and a very sweet, respectful and reverent attitude towards their mothers. In this film grown men also often cry and hug each other. Although the residents of Havana City seem to be in an unending state of poverty, there is no shortage of intimate community support. I had the chance to catch up with the film's director, Andrew Lang, a 28 year old Londoner, who spent most of his boyhood at an English boarding school. Although in his home away from home, he was not required to sleep under mattresses to loose weight or study revolutionary primers, he had a lot to draw upon when trying to relate to the young boxers. He shared his thoughts on contemporary life in Cuba and what it was like to hock Adidas t-shirts, win the lottery, then finally get money from PBS to fund his first feature film.

Robyn Hillman-Harrigan: You said during the Q&A that this was your first feature film, and you made it after only having studied filmmaking for 5 weeks at the Cuban film academy. Why did you come from London to Cuba to study film and what inspired you to make Sons of Cuba?

Andrew Lang: It really goes miles back. I first became interested in documentaries when I was at this boarding school, and we had a really socialist Spanish teacher, who was just appalled at himself that he was teaching at this posh boarding school. So one afternoon, he tried to shut us up and he showed us the Chilean film, The Battle of Chile by Patricio Guzman, its an observational doc filmed from 1970-73 that tells the story of the Chilean revolution from before Allende came to power, to the moment of Pinochet's coup on September 11, 1973. I never liked movies before that, I always thought they were boring, but after I saw it, I thought, this is incredible, it started there.

Next, I started going to documentary screenings in London and there'd be these amazing films and then I'd see the filmmakers after and they'd be these guys with ripped jeans and sneakers that were falling apart (a bit like me at the moment), they looked so disheveled and tired, I thought, I want to make films, but I don't know if I want to be that poor. Then I'd go up to them later at the bar and whisper, "Are you making any money off of this?" They'd almost choke on their peanuts, because they'd be laughing so hard.

Then I went to Chile during college and found out that Patricio Guzman's films were still banned. I had to buy them from a guy who agreed to meet me at the railway station and give them to me in a shoe box. I was there during the 30th anniversary of the coup and their were massive protests and mothers who were still morning their disappeared children. I started filming the protests and I thought, this is really good fun, this is what I want to do.

Then I went back to London and decided to do my senior thesis on Guzman. Through that I learned a lot about New Latin American Cinema, which is a movement that started up in the 60's, and is basically cinema in service of revolution. They had established a New Latin American Cinema school in Cuba. Just before leaving to go there, I read an article in the UK Times about boxing in Cuba, in which a famous Cuban boxer said that the reason Cuban's are such good boxers is, "Ours is a small country, but we love to fight, we're fighters in all aspects of life."

I was going to do something on someone who was just breaking in to the Olympic team and then I found these young kids. I got up at 4 in the morning with them and all these skinny little boys were shadow-boxing in the dark, then they all started chanting, "Victory is our Duty!" I Knew that this was my story.

Although this is my first film I drew from a lot of other films while making it, especially Guzman's work. I wanted to capture a sense of melancholy and use the illness of Castro as a subplot to the boys personal stories.

Robyn: That melancholy really comes across in the children's eyes, I think that's what effected people in the audience the most. The kids seem so desperate, but it's not the kind of desperation that would make someone go out and steal, its the kind that makes a person work really hard, it is this blind ambition.

Andy: You don't quite know whether to be impressed by it or horrified. I think it's over the top to push kids that hard, but at the same time they had this incredible coach. I would never want my son to be a boxer, especially under that sort of training regime, but at the same time I think any parent would be pleased to have a teacher like that for their son, because he had such an incredible way with children.

It's tough for the kids and the parents, especially the really poor ones who can't afford food, having their child in the school means one less mouth to feed and it represents a chance for them to one day be able to help the family financially. It's harder now though, because while the film was being made, three Olympic boxers from the Cuban team defected to the United States, where they can go professional and make lots of money. These are the children's role models and when they leave, its harder for the boys to believe as strongly in self-sacrifice.

Robyn: I think the film, at times, comes across as pro-Cuban. I know that having a permit to film there, you were under pressure to portray a certain kind of story, so as not to endanger people who may criticize the government on camera. At the same time, in order to appeal to an American audience, perhaps you felt pressure to temper it in a more anti-Cuban revolution direction.

Andy: We did several test screenings and I was really encouraged by people's reactions, they seemed to imprint their own leanings onto the film, if they went in with a more pro-revolution view, then they saw the film to be pro-communist and if they walked in with an anti-Cuban revolution perspective, then they saw the film to be anti-revolution.

I had a kind of mixed experience there, I was with a lot of filmmakers, artists and students, who were more negative towards the revolution, while the people I was filming were members of the Afro-Caribbean working class, who are historically more in favor of the revolution, and tend to see it as having saved them from racism, So it was kind of a parallel experience. The people I had the camera on were very positive, while the people in my daily life were less positive. In making the film, the way we resolved this contradiction, and resisted choosing sides was by really placing the film in the boys perspective. As children, they are naturally bigger believers in the system.

Robyn: How do you see Cuba moving forward?

I think the next opportunity for change in Cuba is going to come from this side rather than theirs. This bill that's in congress now, which would allow Americans to travel freely to Cuba if it passes, it will pave the way for the whole embargo to come down. Then I think what's left of the Cuban leadership might crumble. They mainly exist in opposition to the US now, and if that goes they won't be able to convince Cuban's to support things as they are anymore. They no longer have the backing of the USSR and they are isolated, the country is on its knees with a lot of people hungry and waiting for change.

For more interviews/reviews from Full Frame and NYC cultural and political coverage check out my website: http://theBrooklynSocialite.com

Brandt Goldstein: Confirm Harold Koh as State Department Legal Adviser

2009-04-01T16:18:15Z

Those hoping President Obama will restore the rule of law were delighted last week when he nominated Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as Legal Adviser at the State Department. I have known Koh for two decades and wrote a book that covered a key part of his early career. As scores of his colleagues in government, private practice and academia will attest, he is a brilliant and hard-working lawyer with a strong dedication to protecting America's interests and upholding our Constitution. Koh is, by any objective measure, the best qualified person ever nominated for Legal Adviser -- the lawyer who provides advice on the panoply of legal issues that face the State Department.

Unfortunately, some on the extreme right have already begun to misread and misquote Koh's record to scrape together opposition to him. Hopefully, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will have the good sense to brush aside their attacks and swiftly confirm Koh -- taking an important step toward ensuring our security and standing around the world.

After eight years during which officials were too often chosen for their politics, not their competence, Koh's record boasts the impeccable credentials we should expect of all nominees to top government posts. A Marshall Scholar at Oxford, a Harvard Law graduate, and a former Supreme Court clerk, he is a leading expert on national security law and international law and one of the most influential and productive scholars and practitioners in his field. Still in mid-career, Koh has authored or co-authored eight books and won scores of awards for his human rights work and achievements in international law.

Koh's legal positions are grounded in the commonsense views that the president shouldn't have unfettered discretion in foreign affairs and that adhering to our treaty obligations, international law, and human rights makes us safer and stronger. Since the mid-1980s, Koh has argued that Congress and the courts have an important role to play in foreign policy and national security -- a sensible (and legally and historically accurate) position that the Bush administration ignored to disastrous effect. Koh has dedicated equal effort to showing that -- as the founders themselves believed -- our country will be at its safest and most secure if we respect our international obligations, rather than adopting go-it-alone unilateralism.

Koh's writings are not only principled, pragmatic, and persuasive; he has also served with distinction in both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations, winning high praise from liberals and conservatives alike. As a young lawyer, he clerked for a Republican judge (Malcolm Wilkey of the D.C. Circuit) and worked in the Reagan Justice Department under Ted Olson (later George W. Bush's Solicitor General), from whom he continues to enjoy strong support. Later, Koh served as an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton State Department, working with both Democrats and Republicans on safeguarding religious freedom and preventing human trafficking.

In court, Koh has challenged both republican and democratic administrations in the name of constitutional principle and the rule of law. In 1993, as a young professor, he led the legal fight to shut down this nation's first Guantanamo detention camp, which at the time held innocent Haitian refugees. As explained in my book Storming the Court, Koh sued both the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration to establish the principle that Guantanamo is not a law-free zone. Koh later pressed this view on behalf of Cuban detainees in the mid-1990s and then again during the post-9/11 years, when the second Bush administration's lawless use of Guantanamo alienated all of our allies. Koh has staked out an equally strong position against torture. His views are firmly in the mainstream - in line with those of most Americans and similar to the views of Senator John McCain.

Given Koh's sterling record, sensible views, and standing on both sides of the aisle, why should anyone challenge his nomination? His critics on the far right seem to want yes-men who will disregard treaty obligations, ignore international law, and construe the Constitution to let the president behave like a king. President Obama sees things differently. He believes liberty and the rule of law can advance security. And he expects the highest level of competence and independent judgment from officials in his government, not legal technicians ready to explain away the law so the White House can do as it pleases.

I know from personal experience that Harold Koh has the qualities to be Legal Adviser. From 1999-2005, while working on my book, I spent many dozens of hours interviewing Koh about his views on Guantanamo, presidential power, and foreign policy. Koh is a man of integrity and conviction who holds the greatest respect for our Constitution - far more, I dare say, than many of those in the past administration. He understands and believes in the rule of law, and has lived and litigated that belief over a distinguished career. The son of South Korean immigrants exiled in this country after the downfall of a democratic government in 1960, he is a genuinely patriotic American. In office, he worked night and day to carry out the work of both Democratic and Republican administrations, and as a private citizen he has spoken out fearlessly against what he believes are mistaken, misguided policies. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will learn all of this when Koh appears at his nomination hearing next month, and the committee should swiftly confirm him as Legal Adviser. He deserves the position, but far more important, our nation deserves to have him there.

Jayne Lyn Stahl: The Cabal Mutiny

2009-03-24T12:31:59Z

A senior member of the Bush administration, as well as what the Obama White House press secretary calls the "Republican cabal," has just defected.

Lifelong Republican, and chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, stepped forward in a blog post on Tuesday to say not only that there are still innocent people being held at the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, not only that we've been holding innocent people there for more than six years, but that the U.S. government has known all along that they pose no risk to national security.

Wilkerson told the Associated Press that he was informed by briefings, and military commanders, that big brass knew those captured had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, or the so-called war on terror, but held them anyway as information-gathering tools for a so-called "mosaic " of intelligence.

Moreover, Powell's former chief of staff insists that the process by which these "enemy combatants" were so designated itself was shabby and incompetent, and that those sent to Gitmo weren't properly "vetted" before they were hauled off to Cuba. Pakistanis, Wilkerson added, often acted as bounty hunters, securing as much as $5,000 a head.

While human rights groups, and others, have speculated for years about the dearth of bona fide terrorists at Gitmo, the information Wilkerson provided this week was classified until now.

The former chief of staff to Colin Powell acknowledges, too, that both Rumsfeld and Cheney knew innocent men were being detained as enemy combatants, without charges, were held indefinitely, and they did nothing about it as "to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership" which only goes to show that while there might be innocent people left at Gitmo, there aren't many left in our nation's capital.

According to Wilkerson, fewer than 10% of the 240, or 24 men, who remain at the detention camp, in Cuba, can be considered a security risk, yet a former vice president, Dick Cheney, would aim to convince us that releasing even a single detainee would increase our terror threat. Didn't the fact that half of the executive branch went missing for eight years following 9/11 pose a terror risk to this republic? We are only starting to learn the kind of mischief Cheney was hiding.

Apparently, Mr. Cheney thinks he can still govern by remote control.

Wilkerson has decided to come forward now, though he hasn't been working for the government since 2005, because a new administration is in the process of deciding what to do with those who remain at Gitmo and, more importantly, because he is deeply concerned about Dick Cheney's new role as pundit-in-chief, his public censure of a new president, and the suggestion that Obama's policies pose a risk to the safety of this nation.

"To have a former vice president fear-mongering like this is really, really dangerous," contends this former helicopter pilot who flew combat missions in Vietnam, and spent many years in public service. Lawrence B. Wilkerson deserves a congressional medal of honor for stepping forward with this disclosure, and those who have profaned the word patriot, and soiled the flag they've been hiding behind for nearly a decade deserve to share Bernie Madoff's cell.

Jayne Lyn Stahl: Moving Away from a Rogue State

2009-03-17T20:26:04Z

Friday's decision by the Justice Department that the Obama administration has the right to detain enemies during wartime, and without charging them, comes as a disappointment to those who expect carte blanche change, and especially to those who have yet learned how to read the fine print.

For the first time in more than a decade, the fine print actually works in favor of those who want an executive branch that appreciates the fundamental value of separation of powers.

Importantly, apart from doing away with the label "enemy combatant" which, as you recall, was coined not by the executive branch, but by a former defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, Justice now says that the power to hold detainees must come from Congress and international law, not from the exercise of wartime power under the presidency.

Implicitly, then, the infrastructure for inflated power of the executive branch, the so-called "unitary presidency," used by Bush and Cheney to justify deconstructing the Constitution, is being slowly laid to rest.

While, in their court filing, government lawyers asserted the president's right to detain suspects at Guantanamo Bay without charges which isn't, on face value, radically different from the position taken by Mr. Obama's predecessor, it must be noted that the new administration's emphasis on international law, and a greater role for Congress, is a dramatic departure.

More importantly, there will no longer be a blanket policy toward detainees, but as government lawyers acknowledge the "particular facts and circumstances justifying detention will vary from case to case," so we're moving out of the realm of absolutes like "axis of evil," and "terror," and back to a place where individual cases will determine course of action.

We can't afford to forget, as journalist Seymour Hersh recently asserted, an assassination squad reported directly to Dick Cheney. An article in last week's New York Times acknowledges the existence of Joint Special Operations Command which is an independent wing of a special operations unit, according to Hersh, one that doesn't "report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office," and which is not subject to congressional oversight.

And, to add insult to injury, Cheney appeared on CNN Sunday morning to call his administration's use of "enhanced alternative" interrogation techniques "absolutely essential" to stopping future 9/11s. Too bad he wasn't asked if he didn't think clandestine assassination squads even more effective?

Moreover, under Bush-Cheney, checks and balances referred more to personal banking methods than governance. Under Obama, we may expect, once again, to see separation of powers. Isn't it reassuring to think we're witnessing a return to the rule of law, and away from executive lawlessness, even if it isn't happening fast enough for some of us.

While avoiding terms like "war on terror," and "enemy combatant," may not appear to be a sweeping changes, that our new president is now pressing for more congressional involvement, as well as adherence to international law, is positively revolutionary in light of what preceded him.

Derek Beres: The Original Obama Rockers: Extra Golden Thanks You Very Quickly

2009-03-17T14:46:58Z

The 2007 Kenyan general elections did not bode well for many -- some 1,000 people died and a quarter-million were displaced due to the reportedly rigged voting process which propelled Mwai Kibaki over Raila Odinga. The intra-country effects affected both local and international travel. A year earlier, two of the country's artists were in a similar situation, invited to play alongside Ian Eagleson and Alex Minoff of the Washington DC-based band Golden. Their band, Extra Golden, had received numerous accolades for their 2006 debut recording, Ok-Oyot System (Thrill Jockey), and everyone was excited to spread this interesting rock-Benga sound.

Upon being informed of their visa issues, Minoff was undeterred. With a scheduled show at the Chicago World Music Festival, he called then-Senator Barack Obama's office and pleaded his case. With the help of Obama (Minoff had hoped that his Kenyan heritage would help win sympathy), Opiyo Bilongo and Onyango Wuod Omari were permitted access into the US; the band instantly won over numerous hearts, and from that success they recently embarked on a 22-city tour across the UK and US today, in support of their new album, Thank You Very Quickly (Thrill Jockey).

In praise of this governmental intervention, the band recorded what may have been the first Obama tribute song, titled simply "Obama," and released on their 2008 effort, Hera Ma Nono (Thrill Jockey). Unlike the numerous over-sentimentalized and sappy accolades that would emerge afterwards -- recording Obama songs seemed as much a PR stunt as honest homage after a while -- Extra Golden's eight-minute guitar-driven track stayed true to the Benga tradition of praise, as danceable, airy (reminiscent of the better of King Sunny Ade) and socially relevant.

That was one of the better cuts on their sophomore album; unfortunately it did not live up to the sheer intensity of their debut, which was recorded in three hours in a tin-roofed concrete room in Nairobi. Spontaneity wins out. The first album was cut with a singer named Otieno Jagwasi, Onyango's brother, who tragically died at 34 of liver cancer. The band offers tributes to many, especially this fine singer; with their third album, they have returned to the fine form which won them honors in the first place. Thank You Very Quickly is one of the top albums of this young (though quickly passing) year.

The sheer power of Omari's drumming propels this guitar-focused record forward. He never stops, never settles, and yet somehow never overplays. This tricky balancing act is common in African dance music, although that does not make drummers necessarily good at it. Take a listen to post-Fela vintage recordings in Nigeria and Kenya, before hi-life became hip-life, and you can hear the caffeinated spears and rim shots of ambitious rhythm makers. With such heated guitar lines dancing over the melodies, you'd expect the drumming to hang in the back; none of that happens here. And yet there is still space. As relentless and driven as Omari is, the storm never quiets, even -- especially -- on the quieter numbers. But the opening "Gimakiny Akia" suffices; one wonders how any of the musicians pushed that hard for the nearly eight-minute track.

"Fantasies of the Orient" tones it down ever so slightly, with a line-for-line vocal in English and Luo. Unlike African "fusion" projects, this does not sound like two music forms trying to play nice; it is simply Benga-rock, and if it didn't exist before it does now. (In truth the similarities between the African and American guitar traditions are many, so this doesn't surprise.) Six songs deep and a lean thirty-seven-and-a-half minutes in length, fierceness and intensity overrides patience and temperance. These men are consumed by their mission, and stop at nothing to fulfill it.

The only disappointing aspect of Thank You Very Quickly, in fact, concerns artwork. The band's first two album covers offered a quaint, vintage and slightly kitschy feel: badly Photoshopped cutouts of each band member pasted upon some romanticized if somewhat generic background, tied together by an obnoxiously loud font. They were brilliant. This latest: a muffled sunset over a mountain from the perspective of an ocean, with purple and pink swirls reminiscent of sixties psychedelica and teenage girls' Hello Kitty journals. Perhaps if the four men were fighting Godzilla and Mothra on top of the mountain or something -- anything. Alas, not all of our dreams can be fulfilled; we can be thankful for what we get, and with Thank You Very Quickly, we get quite a lot.

Danny Schechter: How The Power Structure Is Co-opting Obama

2009-03-17T10:18:41Z

Is the Hunter Being Captured by the Game? -How the Permanent Power Structure Is Trying to Stop Obama

By Danny Schechter
Author of Plunder

Some things don't change. Obama may be in the White House, shuffling between the safety of the center and the language of change ("changeguage?"), firm in his commitment to the doctrine of neo-prog pragmatism which all too often requires the abandonment of ideas and ideals that could offend both the right and wrong people.

He is in office, but is he in power?

The mistake that many make is to confuse the trappings of symbolic power with the exercise of real power. Truth be told, real power is exercised mostly by unchecked private interests, lobbyists and our media. They have the power to obstruct policies, stir up controversies and orchestrate pressure to kill measures they don't like. They are a well-funded minority and work skillfully in the shadows and through highly paid PR practitioners.

Every politician knows that these non-elected power centers often have more power than elected decisionmakers. They know that Congress is a swamp of competing interests catering to provincial needs. Remember the debate over "earmarks" during the campaign? McCain raised it but then Obama agreed with him. What happened?

Both parties promote them. They are, apparently, a permanent part of the system. South Carolina's Lindsay Graham thunders against them until it involves money for a convention center in Myrtle Beach SC and etc.

AP says of the President: "He criticized pork barrel spending in the form of "earmarks," urging changes in the way that Congress adopts the spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still members of Congress."

True, but like many press reports this is totally context-free, even in our Republic of Pork. These earmarks represented 2% of the budget and got 98% of the coverage.

That's because the media is in the perception-forming business, and despite some liberal (but rarely left) voices, tilts center-right, when it is not blatantly serving a right-wing agenda.

Is this a conspiracy theory? I don't think so based on thirty years inside the media world.

Former AP reporter Robert Parry, now editor of Consortiumnews.com, sums up this part of the problem:

Less than two months into Barack Obama's presidency, it has become clear that the top threat to his ability to accomplish his goals -- from reversing the recession to reforming health care to building a greener economy -- is not just an obstructionist Republican Party but a U.S. news media that remains largely tilted to the Right. There is the powerful right-wing media -- with its many outlets in print, radio, TV and the Internet -- but also a mainstream/corporate media that can't escape the old dynamic of framing stories negatively about Democrats and granting Republicans every benefit of the doubt.

This phenomenon is obvious to anyone that looks closely but few among the Democrats mention it less they be marginalized or stripped of access to the airwaves for an occasional sound bite. Even fewer try to build and support independent media like Parry's organization or our own.

Politics remains a battleground and it's not just Rush and his ditto heads who help steer or undercut the agenda. Conservative democrats are not fully on board the Obama express.

Powerful lobbies from two private sector complexes and one country have disproportionate clout. There's the long-standing military-industrial complex, there's the financialized credit and loan complex and there are the bully boys of Israeli hegemony.

The first two want to suck off the budget and deregulate when possible; the third wants money too -- and gets far more than its fair share -- but also to control the discourse and even name the officals who are part of it.

Example, President Obama appointed Dennis Blair Director of National Intelligence. Blair wanted to have an advisory group and reached out to a former US ambassador Charles Freeman considered to be an outspoken and outside the box thinker. Like Obama Blair wanted some diversity of views among his advisors, and to understand a region that has largely turned against us.

What happened? Freeman who dared criticize Israeli policy was targeted by the Israeli Lobby. Rumors were floated; his record was distorted. Right wing pundits went to work painting Freeman as an enemy of the United States. He was forced to withdraw. Ironically part of this noxious campaign was steered by an AIPAC operative who is himself accused of spying for Israel.

Ray McGovern, a veteran CIA man notes that Freeman himself revealed that his character assassination was orchestrated by the Israel Lobby:

The outrageous agitation ... will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. [It casts] doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the United States rather than those of a lobby group intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government...The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views ... and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those it [the lobby] favors.

It is almost as if every government, Republican and Democrat is required or intimidated into supporting Israel's every policy even when blatantly reactionary, racist, or even self-destructive. Are we now supposed to rubberstamp every decision by its new ultra-right government that won power with electoral maneuvers and blatant appeals to chauvinism and fanaticism?

Obama stayed silent when his own appointee was bashed into resigning by agents of a foreign power, even if they don't cop to that description?

Has the president lost his tongue, or his courage? Must he lay down with the lions to stay in power or do the people who put him into office have to get back into action and stand up for the values and spirit that turned so many on?

Yes, he's better than Bush even if some of his recent pronouncements sound like Bush-lite. We have to understand the nature or the terrain he's fighting in -- and then press him to do what's right, not offer rationalizations.

We also have to anticipate what my former government professor at Cornell, Theodore Lowi is now saying, that he expects Obama too will inevitably be targeted and go through a downward spiral:

If you check out the rhetoric on the front pages of papers and magazines and TV, you'll see how personalized references are: 'Can he deliver? When will he deliver?' ...The reality is that all the powers in the world could not make it possible for him to do what's expected. That's what makes me so sad. Obama excels in all that we require in a president and he'll fail, precisely because he's president. I know this sounds like an awful contradiction or conundrum, but that's the presidency.

News Dissector Danny Schechter blogs for Mediachannel.org. He is making a film based on his book Plunder on the financial crisis. (Cosimo Books at Amazon.com) Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org

Tracy Fischman: Council Creation Marks New Day

2009-03-16T16:38:39Z

What a difference an election can make. The near-decade of living recklessly, irresponsibly, and oppressively is finally over. While the aftermath of the Bush Administration approximates, fittingly, a natural disaster, the Obama presidency already promises a landscape that is brighter and smoother.

One shining light - among many - is this Administration's enhanced focus on women and girls. In this month when we recognize the voices and contributions of women around the world, President Obama recently created the White House Council on Women and Girls (the Council). This comes on the heels of a palpable paradigm shift that already has changed policy and practice. In less than two months, President Obama has: rescinded the Global Gag Rule (see footnote 1); begun the process to overturn a Bush regulation that erroneously reclassified many common forms of birth control as "abortion," thereby depriving some women of needed services (see footnote 2); demonstrated his commitment to put science before politics through pro-science executive appointments; and issued an executive order to allow federal funds to expand stem cell research (see footnote 3). These are but a few of the shifts we've seen, demonstrating a new era of respect for women, families, public health, and science.

The new Council is not just symbolic. Its charge is large, and the need is great. Women and girls experience a range of unique economic, educational, health, and workplace challenges that affect their overall stability and wellbeing. A renewed focus on women and girls will ultimately help to maximize resources, coordinate services, diminish inequities, reduce disparities, and thereby improve outcomes in the status of women and girls.

Although President Obama inherited an economy with dire problems, the Council must take into account the particular needs of girls, even during a time when budgets are tight and devoted resources for girls' programs are diminishing. The Council will provide a space and an opportunity to cultivate public-private partnerships, as well as devoted funding mechanisms to prioritize issues affecting women and girls. It also offers a forum to foster girl -- specific leadership and development, celebrate the resiliency and power of girls, and provide a space to rethink traditional assumptions -- to place women and girls at the center of conversations about research, funding, and programming.

This requires action and leadership at the top levels of government, and also in local communities. The establishment of the Council is a vital and promising step. Congress, state and local elected leaders/policy makers, and other funders (foundations and individuals) must work closely with this new Council to enhance and integrate their efforts, and support the existing great work happening around the country.

President Obama has begun to undo damage done by the Bush administration. He has begun to restore the rights of women, girls, and families in the U.S. and abroad. The White House Council on Women and Girls is a platform to further the cause of justice in our nation and around the world, and change the course of history.

Footnotes:
1) This Bush policy endangered the health and lives of women around the world by prohibiting any organization that received U.S. aid from using their own funds to counsel on or provide abortion services, or to advocate for changes regarding their nation's abortion laws.

2) This regulation allows individuals, providers, and health insurance companies the right to refuse to provide certain contraceptive services that are now -- under the Bush regulation -- defined as "abortion."

3) Note this shift in policy: In March 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a report, Scientific Integrity in Policymaking, that criticized the unprecedented "manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush Administration," and in July 2007, President Bush's first Surgeon General, Dr. Richard H. Carmona, charged that he was muzzled by administration officials who prevented him from providing the public with accurate scientific and medical information on such issues as stem cell research and teen pregnancy.

Marlene H. Phillips: For Egyptians, Salaam Equals Security

2009-03-16T16:07:42Z

Egyptians love to talk politics. And since I also love to talk politics, on my recent visit I was happy to oblige them.

Once Egpytians realized they'd found a kindred soul, and especially upon confirming I was from the United States, they were eager to talk politics whenever the opportunity presented itself. I did not initiate any of these discussions; indeed, coming as our visit did on the heels of renewed violence in Gaza and unsure of Egyptian feelings toward Americans I was reticent to bring up politics at all. But as I said in a report for Huffington Post last week, the customary salutation our family of five received from Egyptians ("American? Welcome! Obama very good!" ) encouraged me to be more outgoing, and once assured of a willingness to engage from the Egyptians I met, I took it from there, eager to steer the conversation toward politics. Even when time was brief politics snuck right in: I nodded a hello at a security guard stationed in an open-air museum in Memphis and after confirming my country of origin ("American?" he called as I walked by, and when I smiled and nodded he followed with an enthusiastic: "Obama! Yes we can!"), I was invited to visit a bit longer: "Obama," said the security guard, "he has economy ideas, yes? You agree? It work?" The ticket taker at a Cairo museum took his five second opportunity to inquire as he took my ticket: "Obama will speak in Muslim country? Good plan. Maybe Egypt?" The scarf dealer in a small shop in Aswan wanted to clarify something first: "You like Bush?" Satisfied with the response he then spoke at length about Bush's replacement, saying in part: "I think Obama understands the world, Obama listens to other countries. Egyptians feel hope, too." When I asked what he based that on, he thought for a minute and said, "He greeted others in his first speech." (Obama's Inauguration reference to Muslims, he clarified). "He has lived in other places. Maybe that helps him see bigger."

As curious as they were about U.S. politics, Egyptians proved equally willing to discuss the situation in the Middle East. The tone of those conversations struck me as serious but not grim, realistic but not fatalistic. Their relationship with Israel was often the first topic raised; every Egyptian I spoke with was proud of their country's long-standing peace with Israel. In Cairo we were shown the Israeli embassy not once but twice, and when our driver pointed out a square named after Anwar Sadat, he added: "A kind man. Good leader. A very good man because he make salaam (peace)."

Unwavering support for their neighbor was tempered with strong disagreement over tactics, and deep concern over the current situation. Our longest conversation on the Middle East situation was with a gentleman in Luxor. M. was a tall, friendly man who smiled often and seemed to know everyone. Children gravitated to him like a robed Pied Piper. I was surprised when he told us he'd served in the Egyptian Army, as his gentle nature did not seem to lend itself to military service, and when recounting that part of his life he shook his head as if to dispel images of what he called, "terrible things, terrible things" witnessed during his service. That time in uniform shaped his views on Egypt and the Middle East, and they were simple and straightforward: peace was good, because peace equaled safety and security for his country. His opinion of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was based on that premise, an echo of sentiments we heard from other Egyptians: "Mubarak good man, because he no bomb. No bomb, no violence, no death - good. That is good." He had no sympathy for Hamas, waving his hand in disgust as he said, "Hamas, no good. Hamas only want, want, want-money, power, goods. No want for Palestinians, only want for Hamas. Hamas bad for Palestinians, bad for everybody." But then he added: "Israel create Hamas. Just like English create Israel, Israel create Hamas. And now bad for everybody." M. offered no solution, only hope, again, that the situation will improve with the new U.S. administration. "Bush, do nothing. Obama, he understand better. We hope."

Again and again we heard that said, that Egyptians hope Obama understands the Middle East situation better than his predecessor. And again and again the bottom line seemed the same: that Egyptians want peace because peace means security. None of the Egyptians I spoke with saw themselves as pacifists, but as pragmatic people who just want to get on with their lives, love their families, hopefully prosper. As M. put it: "Israel make salaam. We make salaam. It is good for them, it is good for us." And he smiled as he added, "With salaam, everyone better."

Dave Maass: World's Worser: Dan Thompson from Pinehill, New Mexico

2009-03-12T22:21:24Z

In which I have way too much fun calling up a guy mentioned briefly on Countdown...

Monday, March 10: I am in the kitchen nuking Indian dinner in a box when my attention catches on five words from whatever Keith Olbermann is reading on TV in the other room.

"...gibbble...guubbble!.....guhguuuuble!... Dan Thompson from Pinehill, New Mexico...."

I don't actually hear Olbermann's moral outrage anymore. Most of it comes through as farmyard noise. But, if it has to do with New Mexico and it's on Countdown, then it must be newsworthy, right? Or at least blogworthy. I get confused between the two these days.

So, I rush to the bedroom. Sure enough, someone in rural New Mexico has joined Olbermann's World's Worst list for calling Obama a monkey. Sort of.

Curry can wait. I have to look up this Dan Thompson from Pinehill.

(If you haven't already, you should now watch the posted video.)

I hope this post gets back to Keith. In my dreams, Keith calls me on the phone and I get to say:

"I have spoken to Dan and I vouch for his authenticity. He is listed in the White Pages, had your assistants stopped watching day time Fox and done some actual research. You, sir, are the apocryphal one."

Sigh.

The World's Worst segment hasn't been over a minute and I already have Dan on the phone. We chat for awhile while we wait for MSNBC.COM to update with the video clip. He was watching the O'Reilly Factor.

Dan is a retired general contractor in sixties. He tends to move away from towns when they get too large. He lost half his IRA in this economic crisis. Dan is not a Republican, though for awhile he was the party chair for La Paz County in Arizona. He's gone man to man against John McCain and lost, more than once. Seeing the senator run for president was "disheartening."

He's also about to see Countdown for the first time. Dan has heard it's the most liberal show there is. Or at least that's the impression he gets from what Bill says.

"If he's going to compare me to Rush Limbaugh, I'll take that as a great compliment," Dan says. He reckons he hasn't listened to Rush in maybe eight years; Rush is too liberal. That's one thing we have in common; we're both on a first name basis with television personalities.

I like Thompson immediately and feel bad that he's going to catch hell from his wife if this goes viral. He's the kind of thinker who is aware that his convictions are extreme in relation to the popular consensus, who knows that a disagreement of opinion isn't the same as a lack of respect (though he will take a shot at Obama, even when he does agree with the president). I think to myself that this must be how Rachel Maddow feels about Pat Buchanan. Suddenly the video's online and we hang up so he can give the clip his full attention. Two minutes later, he calls back.

"It was pretty much taken out of context," Dan says. "Whoever the anchor was, he misread and said that I was calling Obama a monkey, which I was not."

He seems genuinely affected that his words have been interpreted as racist. Dan sends me the original link so I can see it in context.

He was watching "Happening Now with Jon Scott and Jane Skinner," a daytime show that airs after Fox & Friends. His comment was one of 113 in response to the "Question of the Day" segment. That's when they post a question on their blog, then read the comments out later in the show.

Question of the Day

by Show Producers

We'll be showing a live event during our show. President Obama will be addressing his changes to President Bush's policy regarding stem cell research. We want to hear what he has to say and what want to hear what you think:

IS PRESIDENT OBAMA DOING THE RIGHT THING BY REVERSING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY ON STEM CELL RESEARCH?

Here's the actual comment, in context (you'll need to click to enlarge):

OK, so it's not the most cordial peanut gallery...but at least Dan was breaking from the mob by agreeing with Obama. But, compare what he wrote to MSNBC's transcript of Fox's Harris Faulkner reading Dan's comment :

Harris (who is black) omitted Dan's "PS," and awkwardly repeated his name as if there is a Dan Thompson, who likes Obama, and then a Dan Thompson from Pinehill, who's a bigot. All that does make a difference. Initially, I assumed he was referencing the Curious George in a turban reading Marx 'n Engels racist caricature of the 2008 campaign. Now his statement seems to me more akin to Obama's lipstick on a pig reference--a common idiom open to misinterpretation.

"I know better than to call names," Dan says. "I'm not that kind of person. If anything I was comparing his actions; he doesn't have any real direction in where he's going."

Unfortunately, when you post something online and an anchor reads it on one cable station and another cable station copy-pastes the transcript to a teleprompter so another anchor can re-read what the first anchor was reading in turkey-gobbled outrage, the message is bound to come out distorted. It only makes it worse when the original comment is preceded by someone saying they still don't believe Obama is a Christian and followed by someone else's impossibly morbid suggestion that Hitler would be proud of America's first black president.

If you wanted to know what Dan Thompson from Pine Hill, NM thinks...why not just go to the source. Dan grants me a short official interview, before saying goodnight:

Me: So, how would you rate the job that Obama is doing right now?

Dan: So far?

So far.

On a scale of?

I don't know. You pick the scale.

On a scale of one to 10, 10 being good, 1 being bad?

Um, yeah, but I don't know if I would ever trust a politician to ever get above maybe a six. I think we can do one to six.

On a scale of one to six, he's a doing about, oh, I would say, he might be doing a point-five.

Point-five? What has he done that has made is so bad? Point-five is an unacceptable score.

His handling of the economy.......sigh.....He...

You're over thinking it.

I'm not over thinking it! I'm trying! I'm trying to put this in a way that you can print it...He's done nothing for the economy. He is almost a socialist. He says he's not, but -- what did Bill [O'Reilly] call him tonight? -- a progressive, which I thought was a nice way of saying he's a socialist. Anyway, he wants more government, he thinks government is the answer to everything and that's not my way of thinking at all. I think less is more.

Is there anything else you think people should know about you in the context of this? I was just going to sort of write how nice a conversation this has been. I was really excited that you picked up and were willing to talk.

Much to the chagrin of my wife and against the advice of my attorney. My attorney gave me some advice when I was in the middle of a big political brouhaha over there in Arizona many years ago. He said, 'Never talk to reporters.' He said, 'That's just the way to get in trouble.'

Well, I think if you talk to him again, he'd probably say the same thing about commenting on blogs.

I know he would!

Crossposted at SFReeper.com.